The US huffs and puffs with big words, but
has nothing much to offer except a visit from their Secretary of State to
Tbilisi and the vague threat that US-Russian relations could be seriously
damaged.French President Sarkozy pretends it is he
who, on behalf of the European Union, has brokered a peace pla to end the
conflict. But Moscow merely allowed him to adorn a Russian diktat with European
trimmings. And if Poland, shocked by the events in Tbilisi, now agrees to the
stationing of US anti-missile weapons on her territory, it might provide some
reassurance to a nervous people, but it will not do anything to moderate
Moscow's power politics on the Russian periphery.
Those who qualify as make-believe
strategists are also those who claim that Berlin and Paris encouraged Russia's
actions in the Caucasus by refusing to offer Georgia a NATO Membership Action
Plan last spring. They seem to have overlooked that in this part of the world,
Russia held all the leverage in the first place; hence the plan to go ahead
with Georgia's NATO-membership against Russia's will was half-baked from the
start. Had NATO gone through with the project that the Bush administration
proposed, and prepared for Georgia's NATO membership, this would not have
reduced Russian pressure on Georgia but, on the contrary, increased it further
without providing the West with any realistic countering options.
Instead of fooling themselves and their citizens, European governments should now soberly assess the lessons from the Caucasus crisis. Maybe then they will arrive at a workable strategy for their future relationship with Russia.
- Everyone in the West, including
those states in Eastern Europe that were once pressured into the Soviet Empire,
has to learn to get along with Russia. This requires respect for Russian
interests, the clear formulation of their own interests as well as an openness
toward common ones. It so happens that Western interests in close cooperation
with Russia - on such important issues as energy security, environmental
conservation, prevention of nuclear proliferation, or stabilization of
Afghanistan - are generally stronger than those of demarcation or defense
against Russia.
- Where Russian interests clash with
those of the West, e.g., in the Caucasus, it makes much better sense to find
common ground than to engage in confrontation. This will not always be
successful, neither in respect to the Caucasus nor to Ukraine's sovereignty and
relations with the West. But to oppose Russia in those situations only promises
success if the West is holding the better cards. This would also be a condition
for Russia's willingness to compromise.
- Domestic political developments
within Russia are largely beyond Western influence. Therefore, Western efforts
have to focus on influencing Moscow's international behavior. So far, these
efforts have not entirely been without success because they can play on
Russia's own interests. Putin's Russia is not the Soviet Union. Unlike the old
Kremlin, the new one recognizes that pursuing the country's external interests
depends on a functioning network of international relationships, and that requires
the key players to observe specific rules. To remind Moscow to honor these
rules, also in its relations with the states on Russia's periphery such as
Georgia, will be more promising than empty gestures of threat and defiance.
Admittedly, even the best strategy will fail as long as the Europeans cannot agree among themselves. Moscow will then have the upper hand, can pick and choose its preferential partners, and play one off against the other. Then make-believe strategies will be the only ones available when the next crisis with Russia occurs.
Unfortunately, the probability for such an outcome remains high. The way different European governments reacted to the events in Georgia highlighted once again the schism between the ‘old' and ‘new' Europe that Donald Rumsfeld had sketched out in the context of the Iraq war a few years back. When will the countries of old Europe - Germany, France, Spain and Italy - ever learn that even though each one of them may be able to achieve economic benefits in bilateral deals with Moscow, they simply do not have enough leverage on their own to influence Russian foreign policy? When will those of new Europe - Poland and the Baltic Nations - finally realize that they can prevent consensus within the EU, but they cannot stop the bigger EU states from by-passing them in making arrangements with Russia alone?
Dr. Christoph Betram is the former editor of the Politics section of "Die Zeit." He was also the director at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London as well as the Stiftung Wissenshaft und Politik in Berlin and is a member of the advisory board for the Atlantic Community.
This text was translated from German by the Atlantic Community Editorial Team. It first appeared here in German in "Die Zeit" on August 19, 2008 and is reprinted with permission from the author.



September 8, 2008
Ari Rusila, Freelancer, Platinum Contributor (167)
As pointed out by Michel Chossudovsky in his book America’s ‘War on Terrorism,’ (presentation of Anglo-American war policy from the 1990s Balkans to the present), GUUAM has been “dominated by Anglo-American oil interests, ultimately purports to exclude Russia from oil and gas deposits in the Caspian area, as well as isolating Moscow politically.” More specifically, the US-led military invasion - in close liaison with Britain-responds to the interests of the Anglo - American oil giants, in alliance with weapons producers, private security organizations and service providers (like Halliburton). One could say that the “Anglo-American axis” in defense, foreign policy and especially corporate capital is the driving force behind the military operations in Balkans, Central Asia and Middle East.
Just five days before the bombing of Yugoslavia (19 March 1999), the US Congress adopted the Silk Road Strategy Act, which defined America’s broad economic and strategic interests in a region extending from the Mediterranean to Central Asia. The Silk Road Strategy (SRS) outlines a framework for the development of America’s business empire.
The effect of Nato enlargement is to swing the Iron Curtain to the east.
Russia''s opposition to NATO expansion has only increased in recent years. On economical field Russia’s “South Stream” looks more successful so far than Nabucco while the leverage of the United States government over Russian foreign policy has decreased dramatically during last years. US policy is turning into a zero-sum competition with Russia for influence in the post-Soviet regions.
While EU is thinking a workable strategy for their future relationship with Russia and US the situation brings few questions such as
? Is there a difference between EU and Anglo-American interests related to SRS?
? How to balance aims of energy and security (military) strategies?
? Is there a difference between EU’s energy policy and interests of corporate capital?
I am not sure if EU would like to answer to these questions, however my point is that this background may have some influence – more than official concern about human rights, rule & law etc. - to EU policy in Balkans and Caucasus.